Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Step 3.7 Flash carry source-labelled ratings with evidence and any approved estimates in their category breakdowns. Models may use different benchmarks and test settings. This is an indicative composite, not a controlled head-to-head comparison or community Elo. Admin-approved sentiment estimates fill categories without accepted benchmark results. Estimates are labelled and do not increase benchmark coverage.
5 direct measurements, category ratings, capability breakdown, and verified sources
No overlapping benchmark runs recorded yet for this metric.
Same speed class (2s+)
Same speed class (50–100 tok/s)
$1.15 / 1M tokens
Side-by-side comparison across all domain lists these models share, evaluated under standard configurations.
Ratings represent CompareLLM category rankings derived from disclosed evidence recipes.
Methodology & Recipe →Simulate monthly API production cost in USD (US Dollar).
Step 3.7 Flash saves approx. $195.75/mo ($2,349/yr).
Full Technical Dossiers & Specs
Need architecture, licensing, context windows, or provider rate cards?
No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!
Published results are normalized using declared scales and weighted by category benchmark family. The breakdown lists the actual inputs, sources and weights. Models may use different benchmarks and test settings. This is an indicative composite, not a controlled head-to-head comparison or community Elo.
Coding separates them most, favouring Claude Sonnet 5.5. Partial fit: Step 3.7 Flash is scored without coding, reasoning.
Raw benchmark → percentile among comparable active models → workload weight → weighted contribution.
Raw: No canonical data
Raw: No canonical data
Raw: Out $/1M tok $10/1M tok
Raw: Speed (tok/s) 83 tok/s · TTFT 2,354 ms
Raw: Context (tokens) 1M tokens
Raw: No canonical data
Raw: No canonical data
Raw: Out $/1M tok $1.15/1M tok
Raw: Speed (tok/s) 61 tok/s · TTFT 3,551 ms
Raw: Context (tokens) 256k tokens
